Do you agree that these Black Women are 'sellouts'..? - Page 2

YankeeJamaRican · (#26 (**permalink**))

This is a mistake often made on here. Someone posts an article and then steps backs and says, dont attack the messenger. Obviously the article was meant to emphasize a point you sought to validate on this board, or you wouldn't post it without explanation or comment.

The article set out to prove a very subjective thesis that these women were sellouts and agents of collusion. If I felt the need to publish the same about black men, I could pull up all manner of extrapolation and analogy to prove my point, it doesn't mean that the original thesis is correct. The context of the article is clearly anti-feminist.

Do truly academic expositions include words like "sneaky" and "bullshit" and "CIA manipulation"? It doesn't even deserve an intellectual takedown.

Secondly, do you really want to start the p*ssing contest about who takes more pain, black men or women? Is that the constructive dialogue you seek? Is the dialogue you seek for black feminists to defend themselves as not anti black male? I am not going to posit such a rubbish argument.

It is exactly the black feminism = anti black male bullshit that I think is against the ethos.

Michelle33 · (#27 (**permalink**))

This site should primarily be about unity not division. I think we all have a responsibility to keep up the standards of this site. You shouldn't think that you can raise any old topic here, you need to come better than that.

Therefore starting biased bulletins that create a divide between the sexes when it isn't valid (because sellouts don't only come in female form) aren't required here.

jett Black · (#28 (**permalink**))

YankeeJamaRican wrote:

Quote:

This is a mistake often made on here. Someone posts an article and then steps backs and says, dont attack the messenger. Obviously the article was meant to emphasize a point you sought to validate on this board, or you wouldn't post it without explanation or comment.

The article set out to prove a very subjective thesis that these women were sellouts and agents of collusion. If I felt the need to publish the same about black men, I could pull up all manner of extrapolation and analogy to prove my point, it doesn't mean that the original thesis is correct. The context of the article is clearly anti-feminist.

Do truly academic expositions include words like "sneaky" and "bullsh*t" and "CIA manipulation"? It doesn't even deserve an intellectual takedown.

Secondly, do you really want to start the p*ssing contest about who takes more pain, black men or women? Is that the constructive dialogue you seek? Is the dialogue you seek for black feminists to defend themselves as not anti black male? I am not going to posit such a rubbish argument.

It is exactly the black feminism = anti black male bullsh*t that I think is against the ethos.

Quote:

Break it down YJR! Break it down!clp)

Kunjufu · (#29 (**permalink**))

I have now recieved a complaint about this thread...I will investigate the basis of this complaint and then consult my colleague..before deciding whetheror not to remove this thread today..

Soulstarr · (#30 (**permalink**))

I still stand by what I said.

Why can't anyone just see it as a discussoin point? Decide whether you agree or disagree?

Only last week there was a thread going against Women who claim to be "strong black women". People discussed it, agreed withy it, disagreed with it. then it was done.

I can't see whats so mind shatteringly awful about bring someone elses opinion on here and asking people if they agree or disagree. Why is everyone taking it so personally? what qualifys anyone to say what Le Moores agenda was? Why assume there even was an agenda? Or are we only allowed to create posts that arn't gonna rock the boat a little bit?

I'm sorry but the whole this is just a bit petty to me.

Kunjufu · (#31 (**permalink**))

THE BNV GUIDELINES CLEARLY STATES THE FOLLOWING:

Unacceptable Threads/subjects that;

Promotes racial abuse of other cultures.

Target campaigns of hate at specific groups.

Is specifically anti African men or women.

Is specifically intended to attack identifiable village members.

Specifically contravenes the ethos of BN village, The Moderation team view on this is final

[line]

For the benefit of Le moor...I have posted and highlighted where I believe this thread contravenes the BNV ethos.Clearly the way the thread was framed and the sentiment within clearly target one gender of our culture unfairly and imo unreasonably... therefore it is NOT in keeping with the ideals of this Village..

However given the intense debate this subject has stirred up on both sides, I also feel that there is a greater responsibility to let the thread stand so that the flawed premise put forward by Le moor can be appropriately explored and challenged by ALL sides...

So the thread will stand for now with Alterations to the title and to the opening argument..the thread will be carefully monitered by the Moderation team.....

Abissinia · (#32 (**permalink**))

Never mind

blktrainers

huskagee · (#33 (**permalink**))

COLTRANE wrote:

Quote:

how about looking deep down in the issues raised by the threrad and not the poster (LE MOOR) who in my opinion wanted to bring into attention on the subject

lets not slaughter the messenger but it would be better to look into the message

.................................................. .................................................. ...

our heroes

Quote:

Daaaaamn....ROFL....Coltrane, they say that every man should have a hobby but what do you do after work and on weekends? playing paparazzi?....

Quote:

if you need a photographer for your interracial relationship, please call me. Discrecy guaranteed...1-800-COLTRANE

bighairlol

Quote:

Shemsi en Tehuti · (#34 (**permalink**))

Lady Vee wrote:

Quote:

Le Moor wrote:

Quote:

Cant be against the ethos of BN as there are hundreds of previous sellout threads that have gone before us. The fact thisone targets certain black women..... well could it be this that upsets you. Would BN pull all the Ashley Cole, or AinsleyHarriotthreads if i complained it personally offended me....i think not.

Quote:

I think the difference is the fact that the writer chose to attack some of our Black heroines - you could hardly class Cole & Harriot as Black role models!

Quote:

The writer is a hypocrite. He claims that White people put these women up to destroying the Black man without acknowledging that Black men have done the same to us.

Quote:

With the exception of a few (Berry, the Walkers & Latifah - did anyone see that movie with her and Steve Martin? Very stereotypical!) I cannot see any merit in this attack.

Quote:

Seems like someone trying to sell an article.....

Quote:

===============================

Quote:

I do see your point, but the article did say that one of the main objectives of White supremacists is to create an artificial divide between men and women of a different culture. It correctly gave an example of how this was done prior to invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Black men certainlyhave their historic roles as sell-outs, and that is probably a bit over-done. I am personally fine with the article because I don't think it's focus is on just Black sellouts, but is to illustrate the artificialgender-divide facilitated and instigated by White Supremacists.

Shemsi en Tehuti · (#35 (**permalink**))

Michelle33 wrote:

Quote:

I don't have a problem discussing sell outs. I don't see the need of picking on just the female ones. And for this Le Moor chooses to insult me, well cheers mate niceone.gif

Quote:

======================================

Quote:

I think the very first statement in the thread-starter was important for the frame of reference when reading the article. It states...

Quote:

IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND:
The CIA believes that one of the easiest ways to attack an
ethnic group is to launch a psychological attack on the women
of that ethnic group. The key components of such an attack are:
1) Tell the women of the targeted ethnic group that they should be
unhappy; 2) Tell the women of the targeted ethnic group that they
are oppressed (not by the white man but by the dark man); and
3) Tell the women of the targeted ethnic group that they should
separate from their men and seek "liberation" for THEMSELVES by
adopting white materialist culture, uniting with white western society,
and adopting white western "ideals." THIS IS WHY THE FIRST THING
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DID BEFORE IT ATTACKED AFGHANISTAN AND
IRAQ was to start talking about the "oppression of women" in those
nations-- as if the white boys in the U.S. government actually give
a sh*t about the plight of "Third World" women.

Quote:

When looking at this from the role of White supremacists (and U.S. Government Agencies) to create a divide between men and women by brainwashing the females, then it becomes obvious why this article centered around the sellouts whoare women. Are there Black men sellouts? Of course, and the breadth of such a topic would take more than a single thread. However, the woman is what sustains the cohesiveness in the community. So if the Black woman is successfully brainwashed, then a rift in the Black community has been accomplished.

LadyDay · (#36 (**permalink**))

so where is the source of the article?